There was a thread recently...maybe not too recently that seems to have been deleted. At any rate: 22-5 2.44 ERA 232 Ks 0.91 WHIP He has more Ks (232) than hits and walks combined (209). Think about that, when a player walks to the plate, he's more likely to K than reach base. He has won his last TEN starts. Not decisions, STARTS! In fact, in 29 starts so far, he has factored into the decision 25 times. Speaking of 29 starts, he has gone 7+ innings in 23 of them ... ...and gave up 4 ER four times, and 6 ER one time. The other 24 starts were 3 runs or less... and had 4 CG, 2 SHO, and 1 no-hitter . He's dominant, but not just dominant, consistently dominant. He doesn't wear out the bullpen, he doesn't even leave it to them to mess around with! It's MVP - Most Valuable PLAYER Not MVH (hitter) Not MVEDP (every day player) There are Silver Slugger and Gold Glove awards to acknowledge greatness in the field, and at the plate, respectively. There is the Cy Young to reckognize pitching greatness. The MVP is the BEST OF THE BEST. Until they rename the award, to discount pitchers is foolish and short-sighted, and bordering on ignorant. Tell me where Detroit would be without Verlander: Not in first, not ahead of the Rangers in seeding, and likely not anywhere near the playoffs. The Sox could live without one of: Ellsbury/Pedroia/Gonzalez The Yankees would continue on without Cano or Granderson. Without Verlander, the Tigers are finished. That's the very definition of MVP as far as I'm concerned.Posted by ma6dragon9

You sure make a compelling case for him. Let's see how this season ends.

There was a thread recently...maybe not too recently that seems to have been deleted. At any rate: 22-5 2.44 ERA 232 Ks 0.91 WHIP He has more Ks (232) than hits and walks combined (209). Think about that, when a player walks to the plate, he's more likely to K than reach base. He has won his last TEN starts. Not decisions, STARTS! In fact, in 29 starts so far, he has factored into the decision 25 times. Speaking of 29 starts, he has gone 7+ innings in 23 of them ... ...and gave up 4 ER four times, and 6 ER one time. The other 24 starts were 3 runs or less... and had 4 CG, 2 SHO, and 1 no-hitter . He's dominant, but not just dominant, consistently dominant. He doesn't wear out the bullpen, he doesn't even leave it to them to mess around with! It's MVP - Most Valuable PLAYER Not MVH (hitter) Not MVEDP (every day player) There are Silver Slugger and Gold Glove awards to acknowledge greatness in the field, and at the plate, respectively. There is the Cy Young to reckognize pitching greatness. The MVP is the BEST OF THE BEST. Until they rename the award, to discount pitchers is foolish and short-sighted, and bordering on ignorant. Tell me where Detroit would be without Verlander: Not in first, not ahead of the Rangers in seeding, and likely not anywhere near the playoffs. The Sox could live without one of: Ellsbury/Pedroia/Gonzalez The Yankees would continue on without Cano or Granderson. Without Verlander, the Tigers are finished. That's the very definition of MVP as far as I'm concerned.Posted by ma6dragon9

You answer your own question as to why he is NOT the MVP... he has only factored in the outcome of a game 25 TIMES. At the end of the year he will have impacted something like18% of his teams games... that precludes him from being the MVP. While you will make the argument that they win most of his starts, they still had to win 60 games that he had nothing to do with. Pitchers cannot be MVP's. If Pedro didn't win in 99 or 2000 (and I am a Braves fan, not a Sox homer) than no pitcher should win. Hal Newhouser shouldn't have won either.

In Response to MVP - Anyone still arguing against Verlander? : You answer your own question as to why he is NOT the MVP... he has only factored in the outcome of a game 25 TIMES. At the end of the year he will have impacted something like18% of his teams games... that precludes him from being the MVP. While you will make the argument that they win most of his starts, they still had to win 60 games that he had nothing to do with. Pitchers cannot be MVP's. If Pedro didn't win in 99 or 2000 (and I am a Braves fan, not a Sox homer) than no pitcher should win. Hal Newhouser shouldn't have won either.Posted by stipe7676

Ok, now show me how a positional player effects the outcome of so many more.

Then factor in games LOST by a hitter due to poor fielding...

then add in games lost because of runners left on base...

poor baserunning...

You get my point.

How many games has Verlander cost the Tigers? I can comfortably put that number at no higher than 1, and it might be zero.

Most VALUABLE Player, explain to me how Granderson is MORE valuable to the Yankees, especially considering he WAS a Tiger, but they are now succeeding without him. The Sox have survived stretches this season without major contributions from 1 of those 3 at different times, and are still comfortably in the playoffs.

Again, where would Detroit be without Verlander? Make a compelling case that they'd still be in the playoffs, and you may have something. The Yanks or Sox make it without a Granderson/Cano or Ells/Gonzalez/Pedroia (without 1 of 2 or 3, respectively). How are they more valuable when their teams would still be in the playoffs? Please, if you believe that, explain it to me, I don't get that part of it. V-A-L-U-A-B-L-E.

As for '99 and Pedro, that voting was a joke. 2 NY scribes left him OFF theit 10 person ballot because "they don't vote for pitchers". Had he been the tenth selection on both, he wins the MVP. He wasn't the tenth best player in the league that year? Yes, he was, some people undeserving of a vote cost him the award. I have faith in the voters this time around, they got it right last year with King Felix, his 13 wins and the Cy Young, I hope they get it right this year with the MVP. "Hitters only" mentality leads to guys like ARod winning it for a last place Texas team, what a joke.

A guy like Verlander lets the manager know he can fully use his bullpen the day before he pitches and then rest them the day he goes. Leading to a fresh pen the day after Verlander pitches. A true number one usually impacts three out of five games, not just the one he pitches in.

Verlander for MVP. Of course probably Guidry and Pedro should have won it in their best years too!

To me an a True ACE is always the MVP of his team in baseball. A guy like Verlander lets the manager know he can fully use his bullpen the day before he pitches and then rest them the day he goes. Leading to a fresh pen the day after Verlander pitches. A true number one usually impacts three out of five games, not just the one he pitches in. Verlander for MVP. Of course probably Guidry and Pedro should have won it in their best years too!Posted by Celtics1986

Excellent point! I hadn't even thought about it that far, but that is a very, very valid point. A few years of watching DiceK really hammer that home. So in those 23 games he's pitched 7+, he has undeniably and positively impacted the TEAM 69 times. Show me a positional player who greatly impacts the whole team, in a positive way, close to 70 times a year. And Verlander still has a few starts left, 25 wins is getting close.

He could get it. AGon has faded. Ellsbury hasn't, but just doesn't have the big numbers in the right areas.

But Granderson does. he leads the AL in both runs scored and rbi's, which is pretty big, and his team has the best record in the AL. Two things against him are low batting average and the fact he is surrounded by very good hitters with numbers almost as good, especially Teixeira and Cano.

What has to impress about Verlander is that the Tigers are headed for the playoffs, and he is a big reason for that.

he is the MVP. forget the stupid argument that a pitcher shouldnt win the award because the rules dont say that he cant win it. the tigers are a sub .500 team and out of the playoff chase with out him, with him they are a playoff team that may very well go to the LCS. the sox without ellsbury the yanks without granderson are both playoff teams and over .500

He could get it. AGon has faded. Ellsbury hasn't, but just doesn't have the big numbers in the right areas. But Granderson does. he leads the AL in both runs scored and rbi's, which is pretty big, and his team has the best record in the AL. Two things against him are low batting average and the fact he is surrounded by very good hitters with numbers almost as good, especially Teixeira and Cano. What has to impress about Verlander is that the Tigers are headed for the playoffs, and he is a big reason for that. Posted by maxbialystock

Personally, I think that Verlander is hands down the AL MVP and it ain't even close. Not taking anything away from Ellsbury, Gonzalez, Pedrioa, Cano, Granderson, Young, Avila or Cabera or for that matter Joey Bat's...All of whom have had solid seasons and positive impacts on their teams successes on the field. Only Bautista is playing on a team that is not or has not been in the hunt and thus is unlikely to even garner votes but is a lock for the Hank Aaron award... The Angels the only other team still in it, doesn't have an everyday player that is close to "MVP" level statistically and Weaver has faded a bit in the second half but the reality is they win dispite not having a stout middle of the order or that one guy that stirs the drink?

To me quantifying most valuable is where the MVP award gets very grey, sort like the Gold Glove Award. While other awards like the CY are less grey because season stats are weighted against like performers and the teams success or lack of is not factored into who wins or not. Thus pitchers on last place teams can win the CY (Hernandez) while it's impossible for a hitter to win the MVP playing for a second division team or highly unlikily..Only once in recent times has a hitter won it playing for a team that failed to qualify for the post season (Andre Dawson in 87).

While many make the argument that pitchers don't play everyday and thus shouldn't be considered for the MVP, over everyday players who play in over 90% of the teams total games. I can certainly understand the argument, just don't agree, if indeed we're weighing the value of each players individual contribution to the team overall success.

If the #1 critria for MVP is to what extent did his indivual contribution, help lead his team to qualify for the post season. Given that the Tigers weren't even odd on favorites to win their division and who of the above has been more valuable to their teams standings than Verlander?

Here's a question - in the event it is Boston/Detroit, who do the Sox throw against Verlander in Game 1? Do you go Ace to Ace, or maybe put a sacrifical lamb (Lackey maybe or if they have a "4th" in mind) out there thinking you might catch lightening in a bottle?

Verlander is a great pitcher, but he has pitched lucky this season. You remember the talk about Buchholz's 2010 numbers being largely inflated because of his unusually low BABIP? His BABIP was .263. Verlander's is .235 this year. Beyond that, his numbers are pretty much what they were in previous years, though his walk rate has come down slightly. Also, while he has pitched well against the Sox this year, his numbers against the rest of the AL East have been pretty human. I'm not afraid of matching up against him in the post-season - either Beckett or Lester, given the offense behind them, would give the edge to the Sox.

I don't have a problem with a pitcher winning the MVP, but I wouldn't give it to Verlander. You might make the argument that without Ellsbury or Granderson the Red Sox or Yankees would still make the playoffs, but with Verlander you can make the argument that if his team played in the same division as the other MVP contenders', his individual contribution would not have been enough to qualify for the post-season. I think those arguments should negate each other, and the MVP should go to the best player on a playoff team, which in this case is either Ellsbury or Granderson.

Verlander is a great pitcher, but he has pitched lucky this season. You remember the talk about Buchholz's 2010 numbers being largely inflated because of his unusually low BABIP? His BABIP was .263. Verlander's is .235 this year. Beyond that, his numbers are pretty much what they were in previous years, though his walk rate has come down slightly. Also, while he has pitched well against the Sox this year, his numbers against the rest of the AL East have been pretty human. I'm not afraid of matching up against him in the post-season - either Beckett or Lester, given the offense behind them, would give the edge to the Sox. I don't have a problem with a pitcher winning the MVP, but I wouldn't give it to Verlander. You might make the argument that without Ellsbury or Granderson the Red Sox or Yankees would still make the playoffs, but with Verlander you can make the argument that if his team played in the same division as the other MVP contenders', his individual contribution would not have been enough to qualify for the post-season. I think those arguments should negate each other, and the MVP should go to the best player on a playoff team, which in this case is either Ellsbury or Granderson.Posted by slomag

Lucky? I couldn't agree less. Take a look at those stats I laid out again, maybe he's fortunate on BABIP, but the fact is he's consistently dominant. More Ks than base runners. Allowed 4+ ER only 5 times. That is simply not luck, that's dominance. And because he's been a very good pitcher for his career, that is a mark against him? I don't get that, MVP, not MVIP (improved player).

As far as where he pitches, you can't really factor that in too much. If he pitched in the NL west, me may be 27-0 with a sub 2 ERA and there really wouldn't be a discussion.

You could make a similar case that the Sox/Yankee players up for discussion have a quality lineup all around them, leading to better pitches to hit, more RBI opportunites, and more likelihood of being driven in. It balances out, you go with production and importance to their team.

Also, I think someone made the point here, but I must have glossed over it. Everyday players are worth more? Figure about 550-600 ABs for an everyday player. Figure 215-225 innings for Verlander (and it's likely going to be more, he's at 209 right now), meaning he pitches to 645-675 at bat-ters, as it were. He only pitches one day out of 5? Well a hitter only has to bat once every 9 times, and maybe has an easy 2/3 chance day in the field. How's that more valuable than a guy like Verlander who takes 90% of the load every 5th day? A pitcher like Verlander faces about 27 batters every 5th game, a hitter will get 20-25 ABs in that same span. The impact on the bullpen, both before AND after have been discussed. What a hitter does one day has no bearing on the day before or after. Not so for pitchers.

And to take it a step further, if you have one pick to start a franchise, do you go with the undisputed std ace, or the undeniably talented hitter? The majority would take the pitcher and not question it.

In Response to Re: MVP - Anyone still arguing against Verlander? : Lucky? I couldn't agree less. Take a look at those stats I laid out again, maybe he's fortunate on BABIP, but the fact is he's consistently dominant. More Ks than base runners. Allowed 4+ ER only 5 times. That is simply not luck, that's dominance. And because he's been a very good pitcher for his career, that is a mark against him? I don't get that, MVP, not MVIP (improved player). As far as where he pitches, you can't really factor that in too much. If he pitched in the NL west, me may be 27-0 with a sub 2 ERA and there really wouldn't be a discussion. You could make a similar case that the Sox/Yankee players up for discussion have a quality lineup all around them, leading to better pitches to hit, more RBI opportunites, and more likelihood of being driven in. It balances out, you go with production and importance to their team. Also, I think someone made the point here, but I must have glossed over it. Everyday players are worth more? Figure about 550-600 ABs for an everyday player. Figure 215-225 innings for Verlander (and it's likely going to be more, he's at 209 right now), meaning he pitches to 645-675 at bat-ters, as it were. He only pitches one day out of 5? Well a hitter only has to bat once every 9 times, and maybe has an easy 2/3 chance day in the field. How's that more valuable than a guy like Verlander who takes 90% of the load every 5th day? A pitcher like Verlander faces about 27 batters every 5th game, a hitter will get 20-25 ABs in that same span. The impact on the bullpen, both before AND after have been discussed. What a hitter does one day has no bearing on the day before or after. Not so for pitchers. And to take it a step further, if you have one pick to start a franchise, do you go with the undisputed std ace, or the undeniably talented hitter? The majority would take the pitcher and not question it.Posted by ma6dragon9

Curt Schilling has been on record as saying he doesn't think a pitcher should be in the running for MVP...I don't agree, but that's the prevailing mindset of those that play the game...I don't disagree with the notion that an everyday player one who plays 150 to 155 games and is a catalyst or a leader like Pedrioa may over the coarse of 162 games have more value to his team than a starting pitcher who only appears in 30 games...Ellsbury is certainly a very valuable member of the Sox and may well be the most valuable this season, if value is measured by statistics, becasue he is having a career year opposed to Pedrioa who's having a good year by career average standards...

Who's the Most Paluable Player? Tough to say who will ultimately prevail, my guess is that it'll be Granderson or Ellsbury...

In Response to Re: MVP - Anyone still arguing against Verlander? : Lucky? I couldn't agree less. Take a look at those stats I laid out again, maybe he's fortunate on BABIP, but the fact is he's consistently dominant. More Ks than base runners. Allowed 4+ ER only 5 times. That is simply not luck, that's dominance. And because he's been a very good pitcher for his career, that is a mark against him? I don't get that, MVP, not MVIP (improved player). As far as where he pitches, you can't really factor that in too much. If he pitched in the NL west, me may be 27-0 with a sub 2 ERA and there really wouldn't be a discussion. You could make a similar case that the Sox/Yankee players up for discussion have a quality lineup all around them, leading to better pitches to hit, more RBI opportunites, and more likelihood of being driven in. It balances out, you go with production and importance to their team. Also, I think someone made the point here, but I must have glossed over it. Everyday players are worth more? Figure about 550-600 ABs for an everyday player. Figure 215-225 innings for Verlander (and it's likely going to be more, he's at 209 right now), meaning he pitches to 645-675 at bat-ters, as it were. He only pitches one day out of 5? Well a hitter only has to bat once every 9 times, and maybe has an easy 2/3 chance day in the field. How's that more valuable than a guy like Verlander who takes 90% of the load every 5th day? A pitcher like Verlander faces about 27 batters every 5th game, a hitter will get 20-25 ABs in that same span. The impact on the bullpen, both before AND after have been discussed. What a hitter does one day has no bearing on the day before or after. Not so for pitchers. And to take it a step further, if you have one pick to start a franchise, do you go with the undisputed std ace, or the undeniably talented hitter? The majority would take the pitcher and not question it.Posted by ma6dragon9

Well, all of the stats that make Verlander look dominant are related to BABIP. If more of those balls fall in, then the WHIP and base runners go up. If more runners are on base, then more them score, and the ERA goes up. He's a great pitcher, but he's more in line with the 3.2 ERA, 1.1 WHIP, 18 wins we can usually expect from him than he is the numbers he's putting up this year.

4 of Verlander's 5 losses came against the AL West, so so much for that argument.

I'll buy the argument that Sox & Yankee position players numbers should be adjusted for their offenses and home parks, but that should also adjust guys like Sabathia and Shields into the Cy Young discussions. In fact, Fangraphs adjusts out BABIP in it's FIP stats, and comes to the conclusion that Sabathia has been a more valuable pitcher than Verlander this year.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with a pitcher being an MVP, but keep in mind no matter how well Verlander pitches to those 27 batters, he's not going to affect more than one win or loss. If it's a 1-0 win, the guy who hit the solo shot is just as responsible for the win as the guy on the mound, and who knows what he did the rest of the week.

If I were building a franchise, I wouldn't do it around a Verlander or an Ellsbury / Granderson, but if I could invent a player to build a franchise around, it would probably be (in this order) Catcher, SS, Pitcher, CF, 2B, 3B, RF, LF, 1B. Why? Because the offensive production out of Catchers and SS is usually pitiful. So if you get a stud in either of those positions, and round out the rest of your team with average hitters and pitchers, you have a leg up on a team with an average everything and a single stud starting pitcher.

In Response to Re: MVP - Anyone still arguing against Verlander? : Lucky? I couldn't agree less.Take a look at those stats I laid out again, maybe he's fortunate on BABIP, but the fact is he's consistently dominant. More Ks than base runners. Allowed 4+ ER only 5 times. That is simply not luck, that's dominance. And because he's been a very good pitcher for his career, that is a mark against him? I don't get that, MVP, not MVIP (improved player). As far as where he pitches, you can't really factor that in too much. If he pitched in the NL west, me may be 27-0 with a sub 2 ERA and there really wouldn't be a discussion. You could make a similar case that the Sox/Yankee players up for discussion have a quality lineup all around them, leading to better pitches to hit, more RBI opportunites, and more likelihood of being driven in. It balances out, you go with production and importance to their team. Also, I think someone made the point here, but I must have glossed over it. Everyday players are worth more? Figure about 550-600 ABs for an everyday player. Figure 215-225 innings for Verlander (and it's likely going to be more, he's at 209 right now), meaning he pitches to 645-675 at bat-ters, as it were. He only pitches one day out of 5? Well a hitter only has to bat once every 9 times, and maybe has an easy 2/3 chance day in the field. How's that more valuable than a guy like Verlander who takes 90% of the load every 5th day? A pitcher like Verlander faces about 27 batters every 5th game, a hitter will get 20-25 ABs in that same span. The impact on the bullpen, both before AND after have been discussed. What a hitter does one day has no bearing on the day before or after. Not so for pitchers. And to take it a step further, if you have one pick to start a franchise, do you go with the undisputed std ace, or the undeniably talented hitter? The majority would take the pitcher and not question it.Posted by ma6dragon9

I don't think he implied Verlander is having a lucky season. But a pitcher - or a hitter - can have one really incredible year where everything seems to fall into place. Verlander might pitch better next year but the numbers might not jive as well. A few fluke hits, a few inherited runners at critical juncture, some bad calls on fielding miscues...and the stats are affected.

In no way am I saying baseballluck over-rides talent. But it's nice when the two merge.

How does Verlander deserve it..? He gets spanked around against the offensively inept Tribe ? What I think is behind this post is simply, We Thought Gonzo or Ellsbury was deserving of it, but now we have found out they are not, But we agree to anything so that a Yankee does not win it. Lol